cnjackson
·Last week, I started a thread asking for advice on things to be aware of for either a Seamaster 168.024 or a 166.010. Thanks to people's help, I've narrowed my choices down to these two (below).
Here are 4 screen grabs for the 168.024.
I like this one a lot! I like that it is the chronometer certified model (though I know that is moot on a 50 year-old watch). I think the dial is in wonderful shape. I do notice a scuff on the bezel and bracelet at 12 o'clock. Otherwise, I think the case looks good--not too polished? I'm not qualified to judge the movement--but it looks nice. Does anything leap out to you as problematic? I think this one is my top choice of the two.
And here are 4 shots of the 166.010.
I like this one a lot, too. The case does not seem to have any significant scuffs--so that is good. The hands seem to be just a bit more corroded? And the dial seems to have a bit more corrosion--if that's the right word.
So: I plan to purchase one of these: the first is ca $1200; the second ca $1050. I'm told that the first is a bit more accurate than the second.
I think I'm leaning towards the 168.024. My only real reservation is that scuff on the case at 12.
What do you all think?
Thanks so much!
Chris
Here are 4 screen grabs for the 168.024.
I like this one a lot! I like that it is the chronometer certified model (though I know that is moot on a 50 year-old watch). I think the dial is in wonderful shape. I do notice a scuff on the bezel and bracelet at 12 o'clock. Otherwise, I think the case looks good--not too polished? I'm not qualified to judge the movement--but it looks nice. Does anything leap out to you as problematic? I think this one is my top choice of the two.
And here are 4 shots of the 166.010.
I like this one a lot, too. The case does not seem to have any significant scuffs--so that is good. The hands seem to be just a bit more corroded? And the dial seems to have a bit more corrosion--if that's the right word.
So: I plan to purchase one of these: the first is ca $1200; the second ca $1050. I'm told that the first is a bit more accurate than the second.
I think I'm leaning towards the 168.024. My only real reservation is that scuff on the case at 12.
What do you all think?
Thanks so much!
Chris